Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33237 of 2018 Petitioner :- Maa Chamunda Devi Prabandh Evam Sewa Samiti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha,Mahima Maurya Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Keshav Dhar Tripathi,Praveen Kumar Giri
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Civil Misc. Amendment Application dated 4.10.2018.
There is no objection to the amendment application. The application is allowed.
Let the necessary incorporation be made.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Jyotsana
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33237 of 2018 Petitioner :- Maa Chamunda Devi Prabandh Evam Sewa Samiti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha,Mahima Maurya Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Keshav Dhar Tripathi,Praveen Kumar Giri
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present petition is directed against the order dated 22.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra rejecting the appeal challenging the order dated 9.10.2006 in a proceedings under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short 'the Act, 1860').
The dispute between the parties is with regard to the ownership of the temple which is known as Maa Chamunda Devi Prabandh Evam Sewa Samiti situated at Raja Mandi Station, Agra. The respondent no.4 is claiming ownership over the disputed temple. It appears that on a complaint filed by the respondent no.4 the proceedings for cancellation of registration under Section 12-D was undertaken by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra.
In its order dated 9.10.2006, the Deputy Registrar reached at the conclusion that the dispute pertains to a temple situated at Raja Mandi Station. The civil suit is also pending with regard to the said dispute. The Secretary of the society namely Shri Kaushal Rana got the registration of the Society by suppression of the fact that the said Society had been created for the purpose of management of the temple. They are illegally claiming ownership over the temple on the basis of registration certificate dated 28.8.2000.
This order was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner with the assertion that the ground to cancel registration taken in the order impugned cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the registration of the society is in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1860. The object and purpose of the society has clearly been narrated in the memorandum of association and the registered bye-laws. There is no requirement under the Act, 1860 to disclose the assets of the society prior to its registration.
The Appellate Authority refused to interfere in the order impugned with the assertion that in the light of objection taken by the respondent no.4, it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove that the disputed temple belongs to the Society. It has further recorded that from the papers regarding registration of the Statues of the Deities installed in the temple, it appears that the Yogi Mahasabha is managing the temple since the year 1995.
With the said findings, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the registration certificate had been obtained by suppression of correct fact and it was a result of mis-representation and fraud committed by the Secretary of the Society.
These findings are being challenged in the present petition with the specific assertion that the question as to whether the temple in question belongs to the Society or respondent no.4 or cannot be made subject matter of enquiry under Section 12-D of the Act, 1860. The question with regard to the ownership of the temple can only be adjudicated in a proper civil suit to be filed by a person who is claiming his right over the said property.
On a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 could not place before the Court any provision under the Act, 1860 which would require the person seeking registration to disclose the assets of the Society for the purpose of getting it registered.
In absence of any such provision, it was not required for the petitioner to disclose in the memorandum of association the fact regarding the ownership of the temple. Further mere fact of the registration being in the name of Maa Chamunda Devi Prabandh Evam Sewa Samiti would not confer any right upon the petitioner society to manage the affairs of the property which is not owned by it.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the orders impugned are beyond the jurisdiction of the Registrar within the scope of enquiry under Section 12-D of the Act, 1860. While setting aside the orders impugned dated 9.10.2006 and 22.6.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2; respectively, it is provided that any observations made by this Court hereinabove or setting aside of the order of cancellation of registration would not confer any right in favour of the petitioner to claim that the petitioner society has been declared owner or true manager of the disputed Mandir namely Maa Chamunda Devi Prabandh Evam Sewa Samiti, Raja Mandi Station, Agra.
In case of any ownership dispute, it is open for the parties to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Subject to the above, the present petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Jyotsana